ppdm-mcp-server

get_restore_status

Retrieve full status of a specific restore session by ID to monitor percent complete, bytes restored, state, and timing.

Instructions

Get full status of a specific restore session by ID — includes percent complete, bytes restored, state, and timing

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "sessionId": "<sessionId>"
    },
    "name": "get_restore_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sessionId`	Yes	Restore session ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv4.2.2Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; 'Get' implies a non-mutating read, and the field list hints at return content, which is useful. It does not say what happens for an unknown or expired session ID, whether results are cached or point-in-time, or whether repeated polling is expected, leaving real behavioral gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and scope stated before the em-dash enumeration of fields; nothing is redundant. The trailing field list is informative rather than padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description must convey return content, and it names the key fields an agent would inspect. For a one-parameter status lookup that is largely sufficient, though the absence of any error or polling guidance keeps it short of full coverage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already documenting 'Restore session ID'. The description's 'by ID' adds no format, source, or validity information beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get full status of a specific restore session') and scopes it 'by ID', which separates it from list_restore_sessions. It also enumerates what status contains (percent complete, bytes restored, state, timing). It stops short of naming which sibling to use when the session ID is unknown.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'by ID' hints this is a follow-up call after a restore is started, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of poll_until_complete or list_restore_sessions as alternatives, and no stated prerequisite for obtaining a sessionId.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.